From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kothari v. Armenta

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Nov 9, 2021
21-CV-9161 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2021)

Opinion

21-CV-9161 (LTS)

11-09-2021

PRAFULLA C. KOTHARI, Plaintiff, v. EVELYN ARMENTA (FG); JAME DOE, Many ppl. are involved; JAME DOE; JAME DOE; JAME DOE, FBI Agents and opponents, Defendants.


TRANSFER ORDER

LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge

Plaintiff brings this action pro se. She alleges that since 2014, she has been subjected to wiretapping at her residence in Far Rockaway in Queens County, New York. For the following reasons, this action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

DISCUSSION

Under the general venue provision, a civil action may be brought in:

(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred . . .; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). For venue purposes, a “natural person” resides in the district where the person is domiciled, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(1), and a defendant corporation generally resides “in any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2).

Plaintiff states that her claims arose at 343 Beach 87th Street in Far Rockaway, Queens County, where she resides. (ECF 2 at 2.) Since 2014, Plaintiff has allegedly been subjected to seizure and wiretapping. (Id.) Plaintiff brings suit against Evelyn Armenta, who is alleged to reside nearby at 345 Beach 87th Street in Far Rockaway. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff also sues several “Jame Doe” defendants, some of whom are described as “FBI agents, ” and “opponents, ” without any further information; Plaintiff alleges only that there are “many people involved.” (Id. at 5.)

In addition to Plaintiff's claims that she is being wiretapped at her residence, Plaintiff purports to assert claims on behalf of her “family members, ” who are being held captive in Mumbai, India, and subjected to “forced labor, ” since before the pandemic began. (ECF 2 at 2.)

Because Plaintiff alleges that her claims arose in Queens County, and that the only named defendant resides in Queens County, venue does not appear to be proper in this district under § 1391(b)(1) or (2).

Even if venue were proper here, however, the Court may transfer claims “[f]or the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). “District courts have broad discretion in making determinations of convenience under Section 1404(a) and notions of convenience and fairness are considered on a case-by-case basis.” D.H. Blair & Co. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95, 106 (2d Cir. 2006). Moreover, courts may transfer cases on their own initiative. See Bank of Am., N.A. v. Wilmington Trust FSB, 943 F.Supp.2d 417, 426-427 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (“Courts have an independent institutional concern to see to it that the burdens of litigation that is unrelated to the forum that a party chooses are not imposed unreasonably on jurors and judges who have enough to do in determining cases that are appropriately before them. The power of district courts to transfer cases under Section 1404(a) sua sponte therefore is well established.” (quoting Cento v. Pearl Arts & Craft Supply Inc., No. 03-CV-2424, 2003 WL 1960595, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2003))); see also Lead Indus. Ass'n. Inc. v. OSHA., 610 F.2d 70, 79 (2d Cir. 1979) (noting that “broad language of 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) would seem to permit a court to order transfer sua sponte”).

In determining whether transfer is appropriate, courts consider the following factors: (1) the convenience of witnesses; (2) the convenience of the parties; (3) the locus of operative facts; (4) the availability of process to compel the attendance of the unwilling witnesses; (5) the location of relevant documents and the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (6) the relative means of the parties; (7) the forum's familiarity with the governing law; (8) the weight accorded to the plaintiff's choice of forum; (9) trial efficiency; and (10) the interest of justice, based on the totality of circumstances. Keitt v. N.Y. City, 882 F.Supp.2d 412, 459-60 (S.D.N.Y. 2011); see also N.Y. Marine and Gen. Ins. Co. v. LaFarge No. Am., Inc., 599 F.3d 102, 112 (2d Cir. 2010) (setting forth similar factors). A plaintiff's choice of forum is accorded less deference where plaintiff does not reside in the chosen forum and the operative events did not occur there. See Iragorri v. United Tech. Corp., 274 F.3d 65, 72 (2d Cir. 2001).

Under § 1404(a), transfer appears to be appropriate in this case. The underlying events occurred in Queens County, where both Plaintiff and the only named defendant reside. Queens County falls within the Eastern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(c). Venue is therefore proper in the Eastern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Based on the totality of the circumstances, the Court concludes that it is in the interest of justice to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

CONCLUSION

The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The Clerk of Court is further directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on the docket. Whether Plaintiff should be permitted to proceed further without prepayment of fees is a determination to be made by the transferee court. A summons shall not issue from this Court. This order closes the case in the Southern District of New York.

The Court certifies, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Kothari v. Armenta

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Nov 9, 2021
21-CV-9161 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2021)
Case details for

Kothari v. Armenta

Case Details

Full title:PRAFULLA C. KOTHARI, Plaintiff, v. EVELYN ARMENTA (FG); JAME DOE, Many…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Nov 9, 2021

Citations

21-CV-9161 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2021)